Roanisha - Virtues Done

The Key to Success and Prosperity in an Ayn Rand Society

Rosnisha D. Stevenson PhD Student in Educational Leadership College of Education Prairie View A&M University English Teacher Mayde Creek High School Katy Independent School District Houston, Texas

William Allan Kritsonis, PhD Professor PhD Program in Educational Leadership Prairie View A&M University Member of the Texas A&M University System William H. Parker Leadership Academy Hall of Honor (2008) Prairie View A&M University Visiting Lecturer (2005) Oxford Round Table University of Oxford, Oxford England Distinguished Alumnus (2004) Central Washington University College of Education and Professional Studies

ABSTRACT Webster’s Dictionary defines the word selfish as excessively or exclusively concerned with one’s own well-being (304). Society tends to negatively look at the word and a person who is labeled as a selfish person or being selfish. When one puts his or her own needs above someone else, in a “normal” society they are considered as being selfish; but not according to Ayn Rand and her philosophy of Objectivism and rejecting altruism.

Introduction In Ayn Rand’s The Virtue of Selfishness (1961), Rand introduces the world to her philosophical views on just what she believes the true definition of “selfishness”. She explores “Objectivism” and ethics in her book. She explains to the reader that ethics “is a code of values to guide man’s choices and actions, the choices and actions that determine the purpose and the course of his life” (p. 13). This article shows how Ayn Rand views selfishness and proves that selfishness can be both right and wrong according to the situation that one is challenged. Purpose of the Article The purpose of this article is to discuss how every man has the divine right to be selfish depending on the circumstances and the situation they are in. Not all things placed before the good of others are considered selfish. The book The Virtues of Selfishness and Ayn Rand (1961) shows when man has the right to be selfish and not feel bad about or doubt his actions.

Objectivism “Objectivism” is a philosophy that was developed by author Ayn Rand (1961). “Objectivism” holds: that reality exists independent of consciousness; that individual persons are in contact with this reality through sensory perception; that human beings can gain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation; that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness or rational self-interest; that the only social system consistent with this morality is full respect for individual rights, embodied in pure laissez-faire capitalism; and that the role of art in human life is to transform man's widest metaphysical ideas, by selective reproduction of reality, into a physical form—a work of art—that he can comprehend and to which he can respond (“Objectivism”, n.d.). Man must be concern first and foremost with himself in order to be productive in society and therefore be of use to society. Society can not better itself when everyone is concerned about everyone else. You must first take care of yourself in order to be successful in society. Ayn Rand (1961) was able to put her philosophy of “objectivism” into four terms: 1. Metaphysics: Objective Reality

2. Epistemology: Reason 3. Ethics: Self-Interest 4. Politics: Capitalism She then translated her four terms into lameness terms for everyone to understand her new philosophy: 1. “Nature, to be commanded, must obey.” 2. “You can’t eat your cake and have it, too.” 3. “Man is an end in himself.” 4. “Give me liberty or give me death” (Rand, n.d., p.¶) It is Ayn Rand’s belief that in a metaphysical society, everyone has the epistemological ability to decide and determine for himself, what should be done to the betterment of oneself. You must first and foremost take care of yourself in order to be of use to anyone else. This idea is not by any means calling for everyone to be self centered and conceded, but to take care of yourself so that you can help in the betterment of society. This is not in anyone calling on everyone to be all about me, but for you to first take care of “me” so that you can help, assist and make life better for “you”. Selfishness Following the philosophy of “objectivism” may lead for people to assume that a person is being selfish and consider them a selfish person, but it is quite the contrary. In order to survive in society you must be selfish, if you don’t take care of you, who will? So let’s take a look at the meaning of the word selfish/selfishness. The word “selfishness” in today’s society has a connotation of being unethical and morally wrong. The exact dictionary definition of the word “selfishness” is: “concern with one’s own interests” (Rand, 1961, p. vii). How can one survive in a world without being selfish and concerned with oneself? In order to survive, one must think logically and place their needs above anyone else’s in order to be useful to anyone, let alone, himself. Going through life putting others needs before your own, can ultimately cause harm to both parties involved. You must be selfish in this world in order to survive and an attack on selfishness “is an attack on man’s self-esteem; to surrender one, is to surrender the other” (Rand, 1961, p. xi). Once you take care of “self” you are more apt to take care of those around you and society benefits as a whole. Great Leaders in Society Who Had to Be Selfish in Order to Lead Society will not immediately succumb to the idea of being selfish, but in her own way, Ayn Rand had the key to surviving and making it in society.

“In popular usage, the word “selfishness” is a synonym of evil; the image it conjures is of a murderous brute who tramples over piles of corpses to achieve his own ends, who cares for no living being and pursues nothing but the gratification of the mindless whims of any immediate moment. This concept does not include a moral evaluation; it does not tell us whether concern with one’s own interest is good or evil; nor does it tell us what constitutes man’s actual interest. It is the task of ethics to answer such questions (Rand, 1961, p. vii). Had Bill Gates not been a little selfish, would we have Microsoft? One can logically believe that Bill Gates put himself before others in order to achieve his goals of creating Microsoft, to better improve society; really, where would we be today without the creation of Microsoft? If Queen Elizabeth I relied solely on the feelings and emotions of others, she wouldn’t be know as one of the greatest rulers of this world, the ruler of an era dubbed “The Golden Age”, she knew the value of her life and her personal judgments and did not completely rely on others to determine what was right and what was wrong for England, she understood the value of she understood the value of her nation and what it took to up hold that nation. She understood that An ultimate value is that final goal or end to which all lesser goals are the means-and it sets the standard by which all lesser goals are evaluated. An organism’s life is its standard of value: that which furthers its life is the good and that which threatens it is the evil (Rand, 1961, p. 17). The value of England was what Queen Elizabeth was focused on, England was the good and those who were against the Queen and had ill intentions was the evil. Was Queen Elizabeth selfish by not marrying and producing an heir for England or was she thinking logically and rationally about what was good for her? Had she not put her needs in front of all of her advisors and others who wasn’t ethically thinking about the Queen, England wouldn’t had prospered as much as it did under her forty-five years of reigning. You can play both sides of the card when it comes to both Bill Gates and Queen Elizabeth. They can also be viewed as unselfish and putting the needs of others above their own by focusing on the betterment of society and the good old down home axiological needs of others and society first. Bill Gates is a great humanitarian, always giving back what he worked so hard for to the betterment of others. Bill Gates gives an abundance amount of money back to universities and others in need. Where Ayn Rand would be totally against the idea of putting others need above your own, Bill Gates is about giving back his fortune to assist others. Because a genuinely selfish man chooses his goals by the guidance of reason and because the interests of rational men do not clash-other men may often benefit from his actions. But the benefit of other men is not his primary purpose or goal; his own benefit is his primary purpose and the conscious goal directing his action (Rand, 1961, p. 67). Bill and his wife Melinda are one of the most giving couple in America today, and with one of their primary goals in life being able to help and give back to others, Ayn Rand would not view them as following her philosophy but leaving in an altruist society. A person must never put the needs of others before his own and shouldn’t work just so others can benefit; this is not the way of living the life of objectivism.

Emergency Situations There are situations that may require you to rely on the epistemology that you have attained through everyday life and come to the rational, that it is okay to help someone else out because you have studies the metaphysics of the situation and realized that you will not be placed in harms way by assisting someone in need. The question is asked, “should one risk one’s life to help a man who is: a) drowning, b) trapped in a fire, c) stepping in front of a speeding truck, d) hanging by his fingernails over an abyss?” (Rand, 1961, p. 49) A man who lives in Ayn Rand’s world of objectivism would have to carefully evaluate the situation, even in an emergency situation. Would saving or helping this other individual in any way harm or endanger you? In an altruism society, their focus on metaphysics and axiology would tell them that thinking that way is ethically and morally wrong; and they would logically evaluate the situation so that they assist their brother in need at all cost. Taking that approach man would suffer several consequences: 1. Lack of self-esteem-since his first concern in the realm of values is not how to live his life, but how to sacrifice it. 2. Lack of respect for others- since he regards mankind as a herd of doomed beggars crying for someone’s help. 3. A nightmare of existence-since he believes that men are trapped in a “malevolent universe” where disasters are the constant and primary concern of their lives. 4. And, in fact, a lethargic indifference to ethics, a hopelessly cynical amorality-since his questions involve situations which he is not likely ever to encounter, which bear no relation to the actual problems of his own life and thus leave him without any moral principals whatever. (Rand, 1961, p. 49) When you look at the above consequences of living an unselfish life, one may begin to wonder if being selfish isn’t so bad. You are not totally closing yourself off from society, but you are looking at the long term effects of your actions. Man must examine in emergency situations if going or doing something to help someone in trouble, if it would endanger you. You are just as important to society as the next man. Would loosing you and all of the other “John Galts” (as cited in Rand, 1957) of the world improve or endanger society? What would happen if the John Galts in the world went around helping people in certain “emergency situations” before thinking about the long term consequences, what would society do if they weren’t selfish?” Everyone can’t go around bailing out society and signing stimulus bills to assist those that should have followed the objectivism philosophy in the first place, which might have prevented them from getting in the situation that they are in, with needing someone to bail them out. You also have leaders who members of society look up to a great deal, that are leaving a life against Ayn Rand’s philosophy by being martyrs to help make a difference in the lives of their community. Such martyrs as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Medgar Evers, and Malcolm X. These civil rights leaders fought for the rights of the people in their community during the “Jim Crow” times to make a difference for African Americans, sacrificing their lives and the lives of their families, forgetting about themselves in the process. Ayn Rand states that “the moral purpose of a man’s life is the achievement of his own happiness. This does not mean that he is indifferent to all men, that human life is of no value to him and that he has no reason to help others in an emergency. But it does mean that he

does not subordinate his life to the welfare of others, that he does not sacrifice himself to their needs, that the relief of their suffering is not his primary concern, that any help he gives is an exception, not a rule, an act of generosity, not a moral duty, that it is marginal and incidental-as disasters are marginal and incidental in the course of human existence-and that values, not disasters, are the goal, the first concerns and the motive power of his life (Rand, 1961, p.49). These mean saw that their culture was in a state of emergency and needed someone to step forward and make a difference in their lives. Dr. Martin Luther King, Medgar Evers and Malcolm X not only sacrificed the lives of their families, but put their needs on the backburner for the African American community, and ultimately gave their lives for the cause. Dr. King went so far as to envision a dream for the African American community and stated that dream in his famous, “I Have a Dream” speech:

I say to you today, my friends, so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream. I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal." I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood. I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice. I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today. I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; one day right there in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers. I have a dream today. I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together (King, n.d., p. ¶). Dr. King was living the life of altruism, thinking of the society that he lived in and only wanted to improve the environment that he was surrounded by and make a better life for those who were to come after him. These three men selfless acts cost them their lives and deprived them the right to see their children grow up and conquer their dreams. Ayn Rand would have been against the acts of them risking their lives and would have asked herself the questions

before going out and standing up for the people, if this was an emergency that would endanger her life and if so, it wouldn’t be a risk that one should be willing to take. You must evaluate all situations that you are willing to put your self in and if the situation is an endangerment to your life, then it is not a risk that one should be willing to take. What good are you to the community if you are no longer here to make a difference? Most people would consider these men as heroes, heroes who made a difference for the African American community and without them, where would they be? Although the African American community miss and mourned the lives of these men, they will forever be grateful that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Medgar Evers and Malcolm X, didn’t view life as Ayn Rand did and did not follow the philosophy of objectivism.

Concluding Remarks In conclusion, Ayn Rand’s philosophy of objectivism and her ideas on selfishness is a model that is fitting for some but not for all. It is a philosophy and view point that one must establish and follow in order to better themselves so that they may have an impact on society as a whole. This philosophy proves that it is indeed okay for one to be selfish with keeping in mind that through their selfishness, they are not only benefiting themselves, but society benefits through their fruits and labors. References Rand, A. (1957). Atlas shrugged. New York: Penguin Putnam, Incorporated. Rand, A. (1961). The virtue of selfishness. New York: Penguin Putnam, Incorporated. Rand, A. (n.d.). Objectivism. In Wikipedia [Web]. Retrieved February 8, 2009, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand) Essentials of Objectivism (n.d.) The Ayn Rand Institute Web. Retrieved February 17, 2009, http://www.aynrand2.org/objectivism/essentials.html King, Martin Luther (n.d). I have a dream. U.S. Constitution Online Web. Retrieved February 17, 2009, from http://www.usconstitution.net/dream.html.